More examples of FAKE news (February 2017) Every time you see a report about “immigration” reform, and that report does not include the word, “illegal,” you have found an example of fake news. I won’t bother to give specific examples because they can be found almost every day on cable news stations such as CNN and MSNBC. The United States immigration debate centers upon the millions of people in the country illegally. It is not, for the most part, a debate about the desirability of permitting people to enter the country legally. When a journalist pretends otherwise, he is manufacturing FAKE news.
A second example of fake news concerns political polling. Lately, many cable news channels have been reporting the polls taken of United States adults (not likely voters, registered voters, or even citizens).The problem here is that a very significant percentage of U.S. adults are not citizens. Although the illegally-present non-citizens are only about 3% of the total population, some sources estimate that there is another 9 percent of the population who is in the country legally (visa or green cards) but not eligible to vote. It is strange that news outlets such as CNN would report the results of such polls, as they pertain to the public’s approval of elected officials, without explaining that many of the people polled are not eligible to vote. The results obtained from “adult” polls are almost always very different from the results of registered voter or likely voter polls. For example, in early 2017 “adult” polls have been showing Donald Trumps approval to be around 40% while registered and likely voter polls have ranged between 48 and 55%. Approval polls for elected officials should always be samples of citizens. News outlets that report political approval based on “adult” polling are (deliberately or inadvertently) reporting meaningless FAKE news.
More FAKE NEWS by omission (December 22, 2016) As noted, the media can make FAKENEWS by ignoring inconvenient policy modifications. A good example is Trump’s original temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Most observers (including me) felt this was a heavy-handed, impractical, and discriminatory proposal that was of questionable constitutionality. Apparently Trump got the message because, by July 2016, he had replaced the proposal with “extreme vetting” of anyone from certain (unspecified) terror-prone countries.
In August of 2016 CNN outlined Trump’s new approach, which had 3 parts: 1) a temporary ban of immigration from certain dangerous regions 2) having Homeland Security develop a list of countries where adequate screening cannot take place and 3) developing more stringent values testing of immigrants.
The new “extreme vetting” proposals were outlined in newspapers and on cable news shows dozens if not hundreds of times, so it was very surprising when ABC’s Martha Raddatz, in the October 9, 2016 Presidential Debate, asked Donald Trump to justify his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the country. How could a debate moderator be unaware of a major policy shift that took place 3 months earlier? Perhaps, however, Martha was using the old tactic of erecting a “straw man” that could be easily attacked. It is certain that some people in the media are doing this because today CNN and MSNBC and many other news outlets erected, once again, that old straw man policy position. Here are just a few of the (FAKE) headlines:
New York Times- Trump Suggests Berlin Attack Affirms His Plan to Bar Muslims
Telegraph.co.uk – Trump Says Berlin Attack ‘proves him right’ About Banning Muslim Immigrants From America
nypost.com – Trump Suggest He May Go Ahead With Muslim Ban…
The only problem with these headlines is that Trump said no such thing: When asked about the assassination of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, and whether it caused Trump to rethink his immigration policies, Trump simply said:
You know my plans. All along, I’ve been proven to be right. One-hundred-percent correct. What is happening is disgraceful.
This statement by Trump may be unclear to some people, but it does not provide a factual basis for the headlines and stories stating that Trump still supports a Muslim ban. It is FAKE NEWS. (Joe Fried)
FAKE NEWS about climate change (December 16, 2016) There are many ways to make a story fake. One way is to make up the facts, another way is to leave out the facts, and a third way is to completely ignore a story that contradicts previous assertions. Here is an example of a story entirely ignored by the media because it contradicts – in a big way – an assertion widely believed and dearly held. We first posted this one year ago on this web-site, and it continues to be almost entirely ignored – even though it is incredibly relevant to the debate about climate change.
Years after declarations that “the science is settled” we learned from NASA that it is NOT settled. In December 2015, NASA released a study indicating that “the assumptions made to account for…climate drivers other than carbon dioxide [such as aerosols, volcanic eruptions, deforestation]… are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR [climate predictions up to 100 years out] and ECS [climate predictions more than 100 years out]…” The study concluded that previous analyses fell “way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those [non-CO2] variables…” One can only imagine the amount of wordsmithing that took place within the halls of NASA to minimize the devastating impact of this information on prevailing climate science. Although conceding “what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere…,” the study concluded that things will eventually be worse “when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver” (After 100 years??) Incredibly, the study concluded that present-day cooling is primarily confined to the northern hemisphere, “where most of us live and emit pollution.” Based on that statement, can we conclude that the whole earth can be cooled if we get people in the southern hemisphere to do their share of polluting? The story is found here. When journalists write or talk about climate change, but ignore this NASA study, they are disseminating FAKE NEWS by completely ignoring important information.
FAKE NEWS by pretending sarcasm is meant literally (December 15, 2016) Today, Presidential Spokesperson, Josh Earnest, stated that Donald Trump was “obviously aware” Russia was involved in hacking the U.S. election, and he gave the following fake evidence:
“There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent” (emphasis added).
Of course, Trump’s request for Russia to find (hack) Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails was facetious, and Earnest and 100% of the press knows this to be the case. When Trump made the sarcastic comment, Hillary Clinton’s server had long been disconnected, dismantled, subjected to “BleachBit” scrubbing, and was most likely on the floor of some room in the basement of the FBI. Ms. Clinton and her lawyers had already sworn that the emails were gone, and the FBI had already confirmed that fact. Trump clearly stated that he was being sarcastic, but he really did not need to. Of course this ridiculous and absurd request for Russia’s help was meant sarcastically! Today, Josh Earnest disseminated FAKE NEWS.
FAKE NEWS by omission (November 27, 2016) If you want to hear about the death threats directed towards Republican electors, don’t bother listening to the “legitimate” news outlets such as CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS. Apparently, they don’t think death threats intended to overturn a national election are big news. Fortunately, there are some “fake” news sites, such as Fox News, CNSNews, The Washington Times, and World Net Daily, where frightened electors are given a chance to describe the dozens of threats they have received. You can also get this news from some local sources where, apparently, reporters have not yet been trained in the art of omitting inconvenient news stories. The Detroit News is an example, where they did a story about Michael Banerian. an elector committed to vote for Donald Trump. Mr. Banerian stated:
“You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die’. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
Can you imagine how much attention this story would receive if roles were reversed, and Trump supporters were threatening Clinton electors. It would get 24/7 coverage from the mainstream press – and probably an investigation by the Department of Justice as well. JF